Kyul_and_Carbon

Unfortunately this is a sign of the times we live in. As cachers - of course we know that containers are hidden and that when we find the ammo box we have been directed to, there isn't ammo inside. But we are talking about people who are not familiar with the game. Perhaps your neighbor. Someone out walking their dog sees a strange person searching and looking around a guardrail. Watching him more, this person sees him take something off the guardrail, fiddle with it, and return it to the guardrail. Its suspicious behavior. It doesn't have to be a terrorist. Were the gunmen at all the school shootings terrorists? No - just a person who decided to harm other people. I'm a cacher and I enjoy the game but I also can see how someone may panic if they found some of these containers out there. Ammo boxes and decon containers may be nice, but I think the normal person would say "if I find an ammo box - there is more than likely ammo inside of it." If this person had selected a similar container only clear, then people could see what is inside and know it was not a threat. And yeah... that reporter was definitely trying to make up word count.... describing the goat? wow. EDIT: I watched the video above and it was near 3 critical areas and was HIGH traffic. All the reporting muggle saw was a guy dropping a green box off. Of course that would be viewed as a threat especially being near a child's playground. But we have to think, even if we use a clear container that is cammo'd up well, that doesn't mean it can't still scare people. Disgruntled people don't always look for military containers to blow others up, but if we can avoid more notorious types of containers (military in nature with military markings) then perhaps it'll be less likely to be misleading to the general public. AND - I still think its funny when they return to the dates and TNLN's as "code" LOL

I don't agree with the idea that a muggle is in seek and destroy mode. I take it as a person who is not a cacher and could possibly take notice of what you are doing. Drawing attention to yourself increases the chances of when you walk away, a muggle will come and try to figure out what you were doing. Even if they find it tho, it doesn't mean they'll destroy it.

Wow, Maxima - what a fantastic offer! I truly appreciate it although I couldn't do that. It is your hide and truly your credit (but maybe one day while I am visiting up there I can find this one!). Thank you tho!

I personally have no idea what letterboxing is but by these quotes alone, in relation to this thread - I can see that a letterboxer would be more likely to cause "eco-damage" because the clues do not lead directly to the box or talk about something common in the area (dead trees or mossy rocks).

I know this isn't "ground breaking" as far as cool, new designs BUT its my first cache I made. My first placed cache was my idea BUT I bought the container and modified it a bit (ie ripped all the guts out of it and painted some stuff on it). My second hide, in reviewers process, is a container my brother made and hid in another state. I liked it so he made me one SOOOOOO This is my handmade cache cover. It cost me under 12 bucks to make and fill with goodies LOL. I spent just shy of 10 dollars at a local dollar store for the cache container and the goodies. The kids and I had a blast gathering all the dried ground cover and grasses on our own. I used my own hot glue gun and old flower box to finish off the cache. I plan on hiding this JUST inside the woods to prevent it getting eaten by a mower but not so far in that its only available to those who can freely go into the woods. The "leafy mound" lifts up and the cache container is tucked underneath safetly. I hope you all like it - I'm proud

I didn't ask for any "tools" - just a general question... but thanks anyway *looks around confused*

It was suggested to me to talk to one of the other cachers. Perhaps they would take one of theirs down if you explained why you wanted it in a certain location (memorium cache). If not, perhaps they would help you find a good and suiting spot for your cache. I am sorry you are having these frustrations. While I live in a smaller city and I dont necessarily see a "monopoly" on who hides - we are definitely pretty saturated over here. On a side note kinda related to this and people who have 1000+ hides.... Sure the base "limit" is only have as many as you can maintain SO.... do you all think that there will ever be an official "clean up" of junky, unmaintained caches? I have ran into some caches that were just plain neglected and the only reason they were still there is because a muggle hadn't found them yet. These are the old rusty altoid cans, beat up and broken tupperware containers, and sadly taped film canisters. Of course, I think if a muggle did trash the cache, the owner wouldn't be anywhere around to actually archive it. Dunno - has this ever been done? Do you think it will ever be done? A cleanup like this would not only open up areas to new hides and cache styles but kinda "spiff up" the face of caching in general. It would be a HUGE undertaking, but I have to admit, CITO applies to old, neglected caches as well... at least in my book. Get a responsible cache owner in and the neglected cache out. OH, and before you all flame, I'm not saying that the OPs stated monopolizers ignore their caches or that anyone who has over 1000+ caches ignores them.... I'm talking IN GENERAL. No one specific.... not pointing fingers.... it was a thought. *hides*

Thanks, puppymonster.. I happen to think he's a rather handsome fella as well And.. I wasn't picking a battle - just frustrated. Regardless of my frustration, the answer is the answer. Nothing to combat. Uxorious - good to know that you know someone who was able to overcome the fear. That in itself is encouraging!

Its the beloved happy medium. Placing a cache with big yellow arrows pointing to it would be... well, ridiculous. If you thought mugglers were a problem before... BUT to hide a cache means, you have to hide it and the person looking for it is going to have to look for it. If a person is 100% eco-friendly, they would not choose caching as a hobby simply because people are going to step on plants and break twigs off trees. I don't see how hard it is to say that if you are a hider, then hide responsibly. Don't put it in a rare vegetation. If you are a finder, know that the hider was responsible and wouldn't put you in a place to destroy something. If you can't find it, don't rip bark off a tree and don't disassemble a stone wall. Dunno.... seems logical enough.

Thank you, ThirstyMick - I appreciate it. The reviewer hasn't done anything outside what he has supposed to and even with my ranting has remained professional and friendly. Just maybe in the future, leave the if statement off for us flat-land dwellers I do think I found another park where I think I'll be ok with the whole distance thing and lucky me - it is one I am able to take my dog too (yes, I know its annoying to keep hearing about me and my dog, but he really lowers my anxiety level 10-fold). Hopefully I'll be able to go out and get the rejected cache from the other place and move it before someone slides in with a new one of their own in the new place

There is no one at Groundspeak that helps ensure that the review process is consistant for everyone across all countries? Such as provided a checklist that is used?

as a side note to all of this... I am pretty darn sure I wouldn't cache anywhere near a cliff.... *goosebumps* scary stuff!

To TheAlabamaRambler - I really would not have taken it personally had it just not been presented to me as an option. The first hide was 100% unintentional on the distance problem. I did not know of the other cache (again, poor searching on my part). THEN the distance exception was freely presented to me (which now I know is standard procedure). The second hide was because of my mis-interpretation of the information that was presented to me. If I could buy a premium membership, I would; however, I have recently found myself unemployed and between searching for a job and stressing over bills, there is no money left over for a member (even if you say "its just 5 dollars, 5 dollars is dinner *shrugs*) To Ferreter 5: Thank you for the tip on the googlemap thing. I will check that out shortly.

I definitely will not ask the other cachers to move their caches just for me. I may be special but not that kind of special *winks* I enjoyed finding the other caches that I could. I recognize this is not a matter of "boo hoo poor me" because I still do not believe I'm the only person who caches who has certain restrictions. ON THE FLIP SIDE: Thank you RJ for letting me know that what you said to me was the standard answer. The first reply seemed like it was typed out and not something that is, for lack of a better word, cookie cutter. My suggestion to those who manage the reviewers replies is to remove that. Leave the "deviation of the rule" up to the reviewers. Then when it comes back to the hider of the cache, its either approved or disapproved because of the distance rule. There really is no need for someone like me to know there are exceptions. I live in Illinois and as RJ said, Illinois isn't known for its cliffs To someone like me, the terrain in Illinois is surprisingly different than if you use the term terrain in yellowstone national park Ya know, ReadyorNot hit on something. It would definitely be nice to have some functionality built into the application that says "your cache may be too close to another cache that has already been approved" - THEN it would save on trying to have something approved that won't be and save the reviewers time of having to look up distances on their own. Even have a checkbox that states "if you feel this is a mistake or you feel your cache is on a significant different terrain (ie separated by a raging river or mountainous cliffs) than the other, check this box" which would override the error message and allow the person to submit their cache. Good idea. Would be helpful functionality. And yes, I do understand that I can better search the site and do this BEFORE submission, but it still would be nice funcationality. People are continuing to read into my frustrations even though I'm pretty sure I made it 100% clear on what I took responsibility for and what frustrated me. Its not the other caches. Its not the "muggle factor", its not me thinking I need special treatment - it was how the distance issue was presented to me (nothing I asked about) and then how easy it is for someone to mis-interpret that message (which I did). Those of you who live in areas where there are cliffs and raging waters may see it as it was presented, but the information was presented to a person who lives in a very flat city.

AGAIN - I think some of you are MISSING THE POINT I know of the rule. I did not know of the cache the reviewer told me about because I am not 100% familiar with searching the cache website. THAT I take responsiblity for. Which, thank you for the suggestions on how to better search before placing. HOWEVER the reviewer told me exceptions are made and spoke of terrain. My definition of terrain is not "large objects that make it impossible to get from one cache to another" The defiition of terrain refers to the surface of the land. I probably would not even be having this problem had I knew of the first cache mine was placed too close to. The reviewer offered up the information without me asking. It is not like I placed it close knowing it was too close and begged for exemption. Finally, if few exceptions are made, why would a reviewer tell me about exceptions? Why not just say "sorry, .1 miles" and leave it at that? THIS IS WHAT FRUSTRATES ME. If its a rule, its a rule. If the reviewer is willing to bend on a few feet, so be it - but don't tell the person hiding that its not really a "rule", its an arbitrary number and lead them to believe that they can have caches closer if you can prove the terrain is different. Do not volunteer information that is not necessary. If its close, finish reviewing the cache and find out if there is a huge cliff between the two. If there is, approve it - if there isn't, deny with premise of the distance rule and let it stand at that.

Quiggle, I presume you are a reviewer then - do you tell people who have placed too close to another that the guideline of .1 miles is an arbitrary number and exceptions are made? Just curious if this is part of the cookie cutter answer... if it is, perhaps it should be re-thought.

If the examples are so specific as to what makes going less than .1 mile acceptable, why do they not just list them rather than telling people "well, its an arbitrary number based on terrain" ? And personally, if two people place cache's on either side of a river, it can still be confused if neither cache makes mention as to "what side" of the river the cache is on. Of course, this excludes REALLY wide rivers because if you are that far off, then you need to buy a new GPS

Some of you got it, some of you didn't. I'm not a troll. I'm not "punking" anyone. I read my email and I was frustrated. I'm a female (not a he) that suffers from borderline agoraphobia and severe anxiety disorder. I use caching to keep me from locking myself away in the house... Some people understand the problem and others don't - its fine. For me to randomly "go find" a new place isn't as easy as you would think. It can take me up to 2 hours just to get into the car and drive to Walmart. Every outing is more than an adventures. Its an ordeal. So... I wanted to start somewhere that I felt comfortable. The problem I find is the places I AM comfortable with going are saturated with caches that are clearly marked as "having to go for a hike" or "look in a tree"... The premise of what I am/was trying to do was make it so a person can go out there and enjoy the day but not have to deviate from the trail. I find it hard to believe that I am the only person who has problems going off trail be it for children, a dog on a leash, physical handicap, mental disability, etc. I was hoping to allow these restricted cachers a place to go beyond the parking lot but not to a point where its going to be frustrating that you spent your time and gas driving out to a place and it end up that you are standing on the outside looking in(to the woods). Its not that I think my cache is better than the others out there. I found a few of them and they are nice caches.... but unless I"m having a good day or do not have my pooch with me... there is no way I could have gotten to them. If those of you who said I blamed the reviewer would have read, I said the reviewer had every right to turn it down based on the guidelines. The frustrating part is that I was told it was "arbitrary" but then he makes it very clear his example isn't an example - its a specific situation. Seriously, its flat here. No cliffs. Definitely no cliffs in the park I was trying to hide in. Why bring up an example that does not apply? Why bother telling someone that its an arbitrary number and exceptions are sometimes made if the terrain is different? If you don't tell people that exceptions are made, then perhaps exceptions would not be requested. To prove what I was told, this is the FIRST contact this reviewer made with me on the first cache placement. I had not spoke with him previously or seen any notes from him. He VOLUNTEERED this information to me: and I assumed that terrain refers to the ground you walk on or touch. Considering we are asked to gauge the "terrain" of our cache's when placing, I thought this is what Groundspeak was referring to as well. Sooooo... marking my caches clearly as "immediately on the trail, do not leave the trail" and someone else marking theirs as grab a walking stick, watch your footing, and look out for poison ivy..... I made the assumption that these were obviously different terrains which would be for my request to make exception to the arbitrary number.... I understand that 2 caches in the woods both listed as 3 terrain and both saying "hiking required" or "get a walking stick" and are 200 feet apart can be confused. So, while I don't blame the reviewer for doing his job, I do suggest that in the future that reviewers are not offering up information that is not pertinent to the cache. I am not sure why I feel as if I need to explain myself to everyone. I read my email and I felt frustrated at not having any luck in getting my cache's approved. But, I will say that I'm not a troll. I'm a real person and this is a real message. I'm not trying to fool anyone. Shame a person can't post without being accused of something underhanded or malicious. OH.. and for those of you who insinuate that I do not read ... that I just click the boxes and ignore the rules: I had hunted what I thought was all the cache's in the park. The one that I was too close to was not one I had found before the reviewer pointed it out. I accept that as my mistake and chalk it up to me not knowing how to fully search the site. I put in the zip code and chose "show me close caches" but unfortunately, this one was not in the grouping but a few down. Once I clicked 2 that were not in the area, I took the search as being complete for that area. I'll accept suggestions on how to better search the geocaching.com site but I don't appreciate being told I'm a mindless bot who could care less about rules.

As a note: I GC'd for several months without a GPS so my startup cost was free I didn't have a printer so I went to the page, wrote down some stuff, drew my crude maps after I zoomed in as far as it would let me and ... poof, I logged some I was a geocacher! Course, my GC for caching is still minimal since my brother felt sorry for me and bought me a GPS

I think with the issue of damage is how can you be sure it was the cachers who did it? If a cache is in a park... then assumptions are safe in saying that "more than just cachers go to that park" - If the area is rare or beautiful, would that not increase the chances of who visited the location is not a cacher? A person hiding a cache cannot predict the behavior of anyone NOR can he or she predict the behavior of people who don't cache (who would be going there for the same reason he would if he were looking for it). Some people are conscious of their surroundings and don't harm things, other people thrive in causing destruction. So, lets assume a hider can predict the behavior of any cacher visiting his or her cache... what of the people who are just there visiting the area? I don't think the problem is the cache or cachers... its people in general.

I recently got rejuvenated into cache'ing and one of the local reviewers has let the hot air out of my balloon. So... this is a RANT.... note: I'm not looking for sympathy and I'm not looking to get attacked. Just frustrated. So, I posted here over 2 years ago about not having enough cache's in my area and had hidden one. I took a bit of a hiatus from caching but have returned and thought "hey, I should hide another one"... well, its getting to the point of me just tossing up my hands and throwing out a few explitives. Having anxiety disorder, there are only a few places I can go to alone (well, with the dog.. just not another human) and these are places, OMG, that involve taking my dog out. I thought "hey, I'll make some specifically for dog owners" and "hey, I'll make them easy so people who keep their dogs on leashes don't have to worry about the leash destroying the trees in the woods".... well - I'm just frustrated. I have submitted 2 listings in the last 48 hours consecutively... the same park. The first one a reviewer said "no, its too close to another cache. 500 feet is an arbitrary number if the caches are noticably different ie one at the top of the cliff and another at the bottom".... well, my cache said "sit down" and the other said "watch your footing and carry a walking stick".... 300 feet combined with those clues ... well, *I* thought it was obvious there was a difference, but no dice on the reviewers side. Soooo I go back out and moved it. Now, the reviewer listed cache's in the same park... and this park is COVERED. Its not a very big park so 4 caches pretty much fills it. I got the cache 501 feet from one and 400 feet from another. Reviewer denies it again. This time, telling me what I already told him... its like he didn't bother reading my notes anyway. He saw it, did the coords and said "no" without actually reading anything other than the coordinates. I posted in the note the distance I was from the "under 500 foot" cache... I "knew" it and asked for him to look beyond it because of the size of the park and the GLARING differences written on each cache page (sitting versus hiking, being in a tree or in the woods versus "do not leave the trail at all"). To top it off, he told me I "had" to put in my home coords or zip so he would know how well I could maintain the cache. If I go there and I'm placing it, wouldn't I take care of it? Just because I live near it... that doesn't mean I will. There are people who live 30-40 miles from their caches and they maintain it... what does it matter? Am I required to live within a certain distance from a place in order to place there? I didn't remember reading that. Did I overlook it? Yes, I understand he has the right to deny it based on the distance, but considering it was him that told me "its an arbitrary number if...." Yes, I am complaining because I am frustrated. Yes, people will probably just write back and say "well, its in the rules" but... for cripes sake. While I know what he did was "within reviewers right"... I have a feeling I know why we don't have as many cache's here as other places do. I for one will not be replacing this one I've been trying to hide. There is no point. We have small parks where animals are permitted. The parks are "all filled up" with caches and there are no room for others. If I can't go there with my dog or my kids, chances are I won't hide a cache there. This lil double experience of rigid replies really has taken the "yay" out of my hiding new caches. I think I'll end up being one of those silent cachers who finds 1 or 2 a year and doesn't bother hiding them. I really should not have checked my email before bed. BLAH! /rant

Where I live we do not have "large game" like bears to worry about. Snakes are there but with respect to the species, snakes will give you plenty of warning before attacking. Coyotes, sure, but just like most wildlife, if you don't trap it, the critter would rather run away than fight. I was raised around guns. I have no problem with guns. I do not carry a gun when I cache. As for being a realist: If I have my GPS in hand, leash for the cache hound in the other, and two children in tow... where is the knife going to be? the gun? the pepper spray? ... its going to be in a POCKET of some sort... and what good is that if I'm jumped? All it really does is give a good percentage change the item that was supposed to protect me is now in the hands of someone who would rather kill me. Where do you carry your gun when you cache? Where is your knife? Seems you would be a perceived threat if you carried it in the one place that guaranteed it to actually help you: your hand. But... caching with gun or knife in hand isn't very logical... is it? Not all attacks are "seen" - some can be a blindside attack... dunno, seems I'm more of a realist to know I can't walk around with a gun in my hand while caching. I also know I can't live my life in fear. What kind of life is that? If its robbers - they can have my GPS and cell phone. I don't care. Its just a GPS and cell phone. BUT, I have never been in this situation. Again, it comes down to assessment of your surrounding environment. I don't care if the arrow is pointing down a long, dark and damp alley. The hider can kiss my arse - I'm not going down there. I cache in the late morning, early afternoons and I go to areas where there is public: on foot or in cars. I do not walk around acting as if I'm going to get attacked at any moment. I pay attention to where I am and who and what is around me. I don't shut the world out. Listen to your surroundings. If you are caching in the woods... I have yet to find one person who can travel silently on dried leaves and twigs. If so... boy, they are good. They can have my GPS anyway! I think when I'm out, I fear more about falling down and twisting my ankle than I do being attacked. It is possible I could be attacked but I'm not going to walk around with that fear 100% of the time.

I see so many points flying here and then conversations about Monty Python my head is spinning. While I can understand the original posters thoughts on the matter and others, I do think it comes down to following the restrictions set in place by Groundspeak to ensure the hides are correct. It is up to the hider to ensure that the cache isn't all but impossible. It is up to the searcher to be responsible. If it starts getting questionable... stop. Do not take DNF as a failure. Walk away. Think about it. Give it a couple days.... Reviewers who are reviewing a cache should actually pay attention to where it is and if it is in an area that is known to have rare wildlife or vegetation, make sure this cache is clear and concise to avoid damage - if they even approve it at all. Fact is property owners have a right to allow or restrict caches. If a park chooses to restrict caches and remove them, perhaps it is the hiders fault for not seeking permission in the first place. Sure, public places we see as "public places" and in most cases, permission is not necessary on the whole, but when you are talking about places with "rare and sensitive vegetation" (not standard grass and regular ole trees) perhaps it would be in the hiders best interest to ask first. The example relating a hider to a person who forgot to lock their front door and got robbed is a bit off kilter. A person never asks to be robbed, but a person who hides a cache is doing it HOPING someone comes to find it. I have never left my door unlocked and prayed for someone to rob me. So - while a good attempt to liken caching to something real and negative.... sorry. Don't see it. SO... what I'm saying is it really is all of geocaching's responsibility. Groundspeak, hiders, finders, reviewers.... When I hide a cache I have to make sure its good and not going to endanger anyone or anything. When I find one, it is my responsibility to not go through it like a bull in a china shop and just enjoy where I am. Unfortunately, my biggest complaint about using parks is that.. if its not a park or a cemetary.... its generally not a cache location. BLAH So. Save Wildlife, yay. Save plants, yay. Save caching, yay. We all agree. Carry on.

I'm definitely in agreeance with making the radio station aware of what their contest is doing to properties in general. Tearing stones off of a memorial is just wrong.

Keeping, Changing or Archiving is purely up to you but just know if you keep it the way it is, it is likely some people will complain. Granted, I'd search for a micro in a rock pile, but I would have my 2 small kids with me who would think turning over rocks is fun. The only cache we have at this point is in the backyard... and we have gotten many good comments but some of them are negative about being in someone's yard and not feeling "right" about looking around. It states that it is located in the yard - so it comes down to as long as there is good information on the cache, a good hint if someone wants it and information that can be obtained in the log files - then... if they have a bad time, its their own fault. I know the one in my backyard gives ya the heebie jeebies thinking you might be in the wrong yard or someone that doesn't know what you are doing is watching - but for me, that is fun too. Nothing like a good queasy stomach to get the adrenaline flowing.